J.K. Stewart

The appellant appealed from his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the sentence was within the fit range given the trial judge's finding of a pattern of ongoing misconduct.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable, that the trial judge erred in allowing cross-examination regarding another file involving abuse allegations, and that he suffered prejudice because the complainant's doctor did not testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the verdicts were reasonable and well-founded, the trial judge properly assessed credibility, the cross-examination issue was first raised by the defence and not relied upon by the trial judge, and the defence had waived the need for the doctor's testimony.

The appellant, a long-time member of the criminal underworld, appealed his sentence for refusing to testify at a murder trial.

He had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with one year of credit for other incarceration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the justice system depends on witnesses testifying as required.

The court held that significant jail terms must be imposed on those who choose to remain aligned with criminal cohorts rather than fulfill their civic duties, affirming that the sentence was entirely fit.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Superior Court dismissing his application for judicial review of a Justice of the Peace's refusal to issue process under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant requested an adjournment on the basis of illness and to retain counsel, which the Court of Appeal refused, noting a history of adjournments and insufficient evidence of illness.

The Court found no error in the Superior Court judge's refusal to grant a further adjournment or in his dismissal of the judicial review application on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a commercial landlord, appealed his convictions for theft and mischief arising from his actions in changing the locks on a tenant's store and damaging/removing her property.

He argued he had a colour of right under the Commercial Tenancies Act, that the trial judge was in a conflict of interest, and that the charges were duplicative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no conflict of interest, that the Criminal Code applied, and that the trial judge reasonably rejected the colour of right defence based on the appellant's conduct and statements.

The appellants were convicted of offences relating to the theft and sale of firearms.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the W. (D.) framework to the accused's testimony, improperly treated a lack of memory as an undisclosed alibi, and failed to exercise sufficient caution when accepting the evidence of an unsavoury witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, appropriately cautioned himself regarding the unsavoury witness, and provided adequate reasons in accordance with R. v. R.E.M.

The appellant was convicted of breaching a term of his recognizance requiring him to remain 50 metres from an embassy.

He testified he believed the distance was 15 metres and had not read the document.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal court judge convicted him on the basis of wilful blindness for failing to read the terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that both lower courts erred in law.

Wilful blindness requires a subjective, deliberate decision to remain ignorant of a suspected state of affairs, not merely a negligent failure to make reasonable inquiries.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in allowing a bank employee to testify to facts referred to in a 1994 letter and that the jury charge contained errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary ruling based on past recollection recorded or refreshing memory.

Furthermore, the hearsay concerns were moot because defence counsel had agreed to admit the evidence for its truth for tactical reasons.

The court also found the jury charge to be balanced and fair.

The accused, a young Black man, was stopped by police and charged with driving over 80.

At trial, the defence applied to exclude evidence under s. 9 of the Charter, alleging the stop was an arbitrary detention based on racial profiling.

The trial judge dismissed the application and convicted the accused.

The summary conviction appeal court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's interventions during submissions and inappropriate remarks during sentencing demonstrated an antipathy and resistance to the application that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude he lacked an open and dispassionate mind.